“The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck (post 3): Jim Casy stopped being a preacher, since he knew of, but did not remember, his sexual promiscuity

Jim Casy had been known to the other main characters as a preacher, but he declares that he is no longer a preacher, and is very eager to make that clear.

Nevertheless, Casy has always been respected and well-liked by the Joad family, and he accompanies them as they migrate from Oklahoma—where they have been evicted from their depression-era, dustbowl-ravaged farm—to California, where they hope to find employment. Toward the end of the novel, Casy, who has become a union organizer for the persecuted, migrant farmers, is murdered by union-breaking thugs.

In remembering Casy, especially in regard to his philosophical pronouncements, which had sounded to the Joads like quotes from Scripture, they recall that Casy had attributed his ideas to “the Preacher,” with a capitalized “P,” like it was the name of a person (1, pp. 440-441).

But since Casy had repeatedly insisted that he was no longer a preacher, what could he mean by “the Preacher”?

The key to this puzzle is found in what Casy had originally said to explain why he was no longer a preacher. Most readers misinterpret what he said to mean that he was no longer a preacher only because he had sinned by being sexually promiscuous. That was part of the truth. But what had most disturbed him about his sexual promiscuity was that, although he knew about it, he did not actually remember it. As he explained:

“I’m all worried up,” Casy said. “I didn’ even know it when I was a-preachin’ aroun’, but I was doin’ consid’able tom-catin’ aroun’ ” (1, p. 179).

Thus, he very clearly states that he didn’t know it at the time he was doing it. But how could he not have? Only if an alternate personality were doing it, leaving his regular personality (“the Preacher”?) with a memory gap for doing it. (He evidently learned about it later, indirectly, when other people made reference to it.)

So here is a good illustration of a fundamental feature of multiple personality. The host personality may have a memory gap for what an alternate personality does. But the host personality may find out what happened, indirectly, from what other people say or circumstantial evidence. In short, it is the distinction between knowing about something you did versus actually remembering doing it.

Psychiatrists may be confronted by this distinction when they are called to the emergency room to see patients who have slit their wrists. In some cases, the patients know that they slit their wrist, since they can see the bandage and infer what it means, but the patient (host personality) does not really remember doing it. If this is inquired into, the patient may switch to the alternate personality that did slit the wrist, who can provide details.

Since no character in this novel is labeled as having multiple personality, and the issue is not necessary to the story, this novel would be another example of what I call “gratuitous multiple personality.” It is probably in the novel only as a reflection of the author’s own psychology.

1. John Steinbeck. The Grapes of Wrath [1939]. New York, Viking (Penguin), 2014.